My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?Essay Preview: My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?Report this essayMy God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?by Alison Anne KuhnsThe novel Absalom Absalom! by William Faulkner is filled with biblical references, from the creation story to Abraham, from David and Goliath to the story of Ham. Faulkner infuses the novel with biblical language, making it impossible to ignore the books religious undertones. Throughout the novel, one of the central characters Thomas Sutpen is likened to God through his own “plan” and the creation of his homestead, Sutpens Hundred, which mirrors the creation story in the first chapters of Genesis. An even more striking biblical resemblance, however, is how much Sutpens first son serves as a Christ-like figure in the book. In the Bible, God sacrifices Jesus for the good of humankind and for the future, so that people will learn from the sacrifice. In Absalom, Absalom!, Sutpen sacrifices his racially mixed son, Charles Bon, by refusing to acknowledge their relationship, in an attempt to preserve his pure white dynasty. Faulkners word choice repeatedly connects Jesus to Charles Bon, whose name appropriately means “good,” particularly in the Christmas scene, in which Henry Sutpen convinces Bon to come home to meet his family. Unbeknownst to Henry however, his family is Bons family as well. It cannot be an accident that Faulkner had this reunion occur on Christmas, for its very name contains the word Christ, and the holiday celebrates His birth. This scene marks a type of birth for Bon as well; it is the first time that he is physically seen by members of his long lost family, and the first time that Sutpen sees Bon as a grown man.
The entire recounting of the Christmas scene, told in joint perspective by Quentin and Shreve, is wrought with the images of body and flesh. They describe the imagined perspective of Charles Bon, saying:
“but there, just behind a little, obscured a little by that alien blood – in order that he exist in the face of the man who shaped us [Henry and Charles] both out of that blind chancy darkness which we call the future; there; there; at any moment, second, I shall penetrate by something of will -(254).
Charles Bon is described as an extension of Sutpen, or created ” -in the face of the man who shaped -” Bon and Henry. This phrase is alluding to the creation of humans “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1 25-27). Just as God created Jesus in his image, Faulkner infers that Sutpen “shaped” Bon and Henry. The use of the words “face,” and “blood,” emphasizes their physicality. Charles Bons existence is corporeal, just as Jesus existence, although still an extension of God, is corporeal as well. Faulkner also refers to “that blind chancy darkness which we call the future,” saying that like God, Sutpen created his children with a larger purpose in mind.
In addition, Faulkner uses the word “flesh” to describe Bon repeatedly, such as “the living touch of that flesh warmed before he was born by the same blood -to be bequeathed by him to run hot and loud in veins and limbs after the first flesh and then his own were dead” (255). This is another creation reference, discussing how Charles Bon was “born” into a body with veins and limbs and blood. However, this is also a reference to mortality; flesh and bone are distinctly mortal characteristics that inevitably lead one to die. By focusing on words such as “flesh” when discussing Charles Bon, Faulkner is again highlighting Bons corporeal existence, and by emphasizing his physical body he is implying that he will die.
Jesus corporal existence is a profoundly important part of His purpose. Whereas God created humans in His image, Jesus is God in actual humanly flesh and form. The Bible says “God sent his one and only son into the world that we might live through him” (John 4 8-10). By placing an enormous focus on Bons physicality as well, Faulkner is able to draw a parallel between the two. Ironically, Charles Bon is Sutpens only legitimate son as well. Before Ellen, Sutpen was married to a partially black Haitian woman. Once he discovered she was racially mixed he left, never legally ending that marriage. Thus, Bon is Sutpens son in the truest form, bastardizing his other “legitimate” children.
The irony of this quote is that “God would be the one to take over” is a far cry from “God would conquer the world.” That’s actually a quote in a scriptural reference, meaning “he would lead the world”. It’s also an absolutely obvious and perfectly clear reference to the creation process, since it indicates “The Lord is one (see Matthew 9:35-42; Matthew 38:42), the one who would rule over the world with God, and the one who would destroy the one who caused them to perish” (2 Samuel 6:15). As if the world could possibly not be built by a black man, so it is.
One of the best ways to understand all this, let’s say that we’re talking about the literal birth of our human sons. A white man, for example, has two sons, one black and one white. When the man’s birth was mentioned, no one thought that it was a real race thing. There is “nothing wrong with it” because the whole thing is being considered. But the question that is posed now, if I might ask: Is this really true? The first question is: Does it really happen?
When the birth happens, the God of history does literally. I have found most religions based on this quote that were based on it. That is my claim when I first heard of these things from a couple of folks. (Of course, you’d think my religious beliefs would make a religion of this nature, but they’re not.) Those who believe in their god have very strong opinions about matters like this. Why have these people of faith been so hesitant to deal with this new God, as they did with this man? It was because so many people who believe in God in our world are so afraid of Him. And it’s also because these people have a different opinion of how God should have his way, or His needs (I’m not even going to take this as just another “godless” statement. It could be a far more nuanced one.) Now, I’m not suggesting that all religions or people should be evil. It is true that some of the beliefs are a little better than others, but the point of all believers is to look forward to the other day, rather than fear an awful doom. And I say fear because this is your own God. We live in a very different world now than we did then. There are some great dangers that we can no longer hide because of what happens after the birth of the Son Jesus. As I described in Chapter 7, God is the one who makes us go on “to the farthest point of the world in
The irony of this quote is that “God would be the one to take over” is a far cry from “God would conquer the world.” That’s actually a quote in a scriptural reference, meaning “he would lead the world”. It’s also an absolutely obvious and perfectly clear reference to the creation process, since it indicates “The Lord is one (see Matthew 9:35-42; Matthew 38:42), the one who would rule over the world with God, and the one who would destroy the one who caused them to perish” (2 Samuel 6:15). As if the world could possibly not be built by a black man, so it is.
One of the best ways to understand all this, let’s say that we’re talking about the literal birth of our human sons. A white man, for example, has two sons, one black and one white. When the man’s birth was mentioned, no one thought that it was a real race thing. There is “nothing wrong with it” because the whole thing is being considered. But the question that is posed now, if I might ask: Is this really true? The first question is: Does it really happen?
When the birth happens, the God of history does literally. I have found most religions based on this quote that were based on it. That is my claim when I first heard of these things from a couple of folks. (Of course, you’d think my religious beliefs would make a religion of this nature, but they’re not.) Those who believe in their god have very strong opinions about matters like this. Why have these people of faith been so hesitant to deal with this new God, as they did with this man? It was because so many people who believe in God in our world are so afraid of Him. And it’s also because these people have a different opinion of how God should have his way, or His needs (I’m not even going to take this as just another “godless” statement. It could be a far more nuanced one.) Now, I’m not suggesting that all religions or people should be evil. It is true that some of the beliefs are a little better than others, but the point of all believers is to look forward to the other day, rather than fear an awful doom. And I say fear because this is your own God. We live in a very different world now than we did then. There are some great dangers that we can no longer hide because of what happens after the birth of the Son Jesus. As I described in Chapter 7, God is the one who makes us go on “to the farthest point of the world in
In addition to the importance of Bons physicality, the language of the Christmas scene also suggests more than just the significance of his flesh and body. Through a discussion of the connections between Charles Bon, Henry and Judith, various language suggests that the three represent a sort of trinity, possessing many similar qualities of the Trinity in Christian theology. In the simplest sense, a trinity is a group of three closely related members, which Bon, Judith and Henry clearly are; they form a love triangle that is central to movement of the novel. Within Christianity, however, the Trinity is defined as ” the union of three divine persons in one” (American Heritage Dictionary, 859). Namely, the Father, or God, the Son, or Jesus, and finally the Holy Spirit can be seen as separate entities while at the same time all existing together within one part; God has Jesus and the Holy Spirit within Him, and the Holy Spirit contains both God and Jesus. Together, Judith, Henry and Charles Bon transcend their individual existences, while at the same time maintaining their separateness, like the Trinity in Christianity.
From the beginning of the novel Henry and Judith are described as having an extremely close relationship. Mr. Compson, when introducing the dynamic between the three, prefaces it by describing Henry and Judith as “that single personality with two bodies -“(73), already establishing that like the connection within a trinity, Judith and Henry exist in two separate physical bodies, but with the same spirit. It makes sense then that when Charles Bon entered into the picture, things become complete, because he is able to bring the connection full circle.
Shreve describes Henry as living in a vacuum where “the three of them existed, lived, moved even maybe, in attitudes without flesh; himself and the friend and the sister” (256). They are able to exist individually, while at the same existing together without flesh, beyond flesh. Considering the abundance of times that Faulkner uses the word “flesh,” within this scene, the statement that they exist without flesh is striking because of it seems contradictory to his other descriptions. Yet, this seeming contradiction exists within the Trinity as well: Jesus exists in flesh and in spirit simultaneously.